Librarian as Advisor: Information Search Process of Undecided Students and Novice Researchers

Faculty librarians who advise undecided students have found the experiences of novice researcher and advisee comparable: Both groups seek to solve a problem or answer a question by finding new information to add to their current understanding and knowledge base. As a result, librarians familiar with needs and stages of the research process may flourish as advisors to undecided students. In this article, we draw parallels between the needs of novice researchers and those of undecided students, and we advocate the use of an information-search model for all advisors working with undecided students

Librarian Advisors for Undeclared Students: Understanding the Advisee Experience

Many institutional models exist for advising undeclared students, a group often requiring much guidance and support through the advising and discernment process. This research explored the experience of undeclared students with a librarian advisor. Fifteen students were interviewed after they declared a major to understand how they perceived their advising experience and their satisfaction with advising and their advisor. Overall, students reported feeling mostly satisfied with their librarian advisors. Most students would choose a librarian as their advisor again. Although interview data was largely positive, areas for improvement were identified

The Internationalization of the Academic Library: A Systematic Review of 25 Years of Literature on International Students

This study is a systematic review of the library and information science (LIS) literature related to international students and academic libraries. A systematic review involves the methodical collection and analysis of a body of literature and is growing in popularity in the LIS field. Three well-known LIS databases were systematically searched for articles related to the topic, and manual bibliography searches were conducted to find additional publications. Journal articles, book chapters, and conference papers were included or excluded based on established criteria. Findings show that articles published about international students and academic libraries have increased steadily between 1990 and 2014. The majority of authors are affiliated with universities and institutions in the United States, although an increase in represented countries is apparent. Fewer than half of the articles can be considered original research, and surveys are the most popular method for data collection. The LIS field—and international students—would benefit from further exploration of this topic, particularly from original research with practical implications

Evidence-Based Practice in LIS: The Systematic Review

A book chapter from the Association of College and Research Libraries publication titled Reflections on practitioner research: a practical guide for information professionals

Twenty Years of Business Information Literacy Research: A Scoping Review

Objective – This study analyzes and synthesizes the business information literacy (BIL) literature, with a focus on trends in publication type, study design, research topic, and recommendations for practice.Methods – The scoping review method was used to build a dataset of 135 journal articles and conference papers. The following databases were searched for relevant literature published between 2000 and 2019: Library and Information Science Source, Science Direct, ProQuest Central, Project Muse, and the Ticker journal site. Included items were published in peer reviewed journals or conference proceedings and focused on academic libraries. Items about public or school libraries were excluded, as were items published in trade publications. A cited reference search was conducted for each publication in the review dataset. Results – Surveys were, by far, the most common research method in the BIL literature. Themes related to collaboration were prevalent, and a large number of publications had multiple authors or were about collaborative efforts to teach BIL. Many of the recommendations for practice from the literature were related to collaboration as well; recommendations related to teaching methods and strategies were also common. Adoption of the Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education in BIL appears slow, and the citations have decreased steadily since 2016. The majority of the most impactful BIL articles, as measured by citation counts, presented original research.  Conclusions – This study synthesizes two decades of literature and contributes to the evidence based library and information science literature. The findings of this scoping review illustrate the importance of collaboration, interest in teaching methods and strategies, appreciation for practical application literature, and hesitation about the Framework

Beyond the Checklist Approach: A Librarian-Faculty Collaboration to Teach the BEAM Method of Source Evaluation

Evaluating information is an essential skill, valued across disciplines. While librarians and instructors share the responsibility to teach this skill, they need a common framework in order to collaborate to design assignments that give students multiple opportunities to learn. Librarians and First Year Seminar faculty at Belmont University collaborated to design a unit of instruction on source evaluation using the BEAM method. BEAM requires students to apply a use-based approach to evaluation, to read and engage with sources more closely, and to think about how they might use a source for a specific purpose. Structured annotated bibliographies that included BEAM were assessed, along with student, instructor, and librarian feedback. The BEAM method may be an effective method for teaching information evaluation when paired with other sequenced assignments that guide students through the research and writing process

Effect of Hydrocortisone on Mortality and Organ Support in Patients With Severe COVID-19: The REMAP-CAP COVID-19 Corticosteroid Domain Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited. Objective: To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020. Interventions: The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Results: After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

“We’re a Little Different:” Business Information Literacy Perspectives on the ACRL Framework

The introduction of the ACRL Framework for Information Literacy in Higher Education in 2015 inspired many librarians to rethink how they offer information literacy instruction. This multi-method study, using data from a survey and five focus groups, explores the use of the Framework in business information literacy (BIL). The study research questions focus on how librarians engage with the Framework in supporting the information needs of business students. Participants indicate that they make implicit, direct, and institutional use of the Framework. They also use a variety of tools aside from the Framework when designing their BIL instruction. Limitations of the Framework include the language of the document and irrelevance to some disciplinary contexts; librarians also struggle with meeting faculty expectations and finding the time for implementation. However, they find Authority Is Constructed and Contextual, Information Has Value, and Searching as Strategic Exploration to be the most useful frames for BIL instruction

Beyond the Checklist Approach: A Librarian-Faculty Collaboration to Teach the BEAM Method of Source Evaluation

Evaluating information is an essential skill, valued across disciplines. While librarians and instructors share the responsibility to teach this skill, they need a common framework in order to collaborate to design assignments that give students multiple opportunities to learn. Librarians and First Year Seminar faculty at Belmont University collaborated to design a unit of instruction on source evaluation using the BEAM method. BEAM requires students to apply a use-based approach to evaluation, to read and engage with sources more closely, and to think about how they might use a source for a specific purpose. Structured annotated bibliographies that included BEAM were assessed, along with student, instructor, and librarian feedback. The BEAM method may be an effective method for teaching information evaluation when paired with other sequenced assignments that guide students through the research and writing process